| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
i'm hearing all these "oh he 100% hacks and this is proof" claims based upon a single action in a game. It made me wonder if it could be some stupid bug in a game, such as click moving an SCV in black area/fog of war onto a geyser and it showing up as "suspicious action" in bwchart. so, has anyone seen a case of someone who is DEFINITELY not hacking (like with 2 of your own computers) and found "supposed evidence" of a hack? | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
|
Sky101
United States1758 Posts
| ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
| ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
| ||
|
Y821
210 Posts
| ||
|
Pacifist
Israel1683 Posts
| ||
|
Petachu
Canada354 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Can't believe you people haven't figured it out =[ | ||
|
lastgosu
United States24 Posts
about something that can be stupid bug in the game. at first people tried to accuse me hacking with Random Zerg Testie vs I. But now nobody talking more about it. now someone is keep trying to say look at this game SW)Lois vs MgZ)Nookie. It is impossible to happen he did attacked without vision etc. and accuse me hacker and banned me WGT with very small proof. 1 very small action which can be error and no more proof until now. Im very sure someone is seeking, trying to find some more proove to upload but couldnt yet. I really dont see senseful action belong with it. Im very sad i got banned from WGT (*cough*) im very sad about this comunity. | ||
|
wishterran
United States1045 Posts
If you just click on the fog of war and it happens to be over a unit, it will not be recorded as clicking on the unit. I'm not here to say that this method of detecting hack is 100% reliable, because I really don't know for sure. But it looks 100% sure to me. | ||
|
pirate cod
810 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
however i too am inclined to aggree that we're moving too fast here, i think the community is in a state of paranoia now that there is actual money on the line that any one of us stand the chance of winning. And i'm still worried one day im gonna see a post by penguin with the title "omg im so sorry i screwed up!" in his detection mechanism. | ||
Chill
Calgary25988 Posts
When people are accused of something that they are innocent of, they claim their case rationally. If people generally don't believe them they explain the differences in their views and leave it at that. When people are accused of something that they are guilty of, they start freaking out. First off, you'll find their arguments just quite frankly don't make any sence whatsoever. They cite facts that really have nothing to do with the situation at all, or they try to attack the credibility of other people instead of defending their own credibility. You can easily see this in criminal / civil defendants or people involved with the police. If you're freaking out it's because you don't have a rational explanation to defend yourself. Which of the two categories do you believe you fit into? You clicked on someone's Nexus while it was under the fog of war. I have yet to hear a rational explanation about how you managed to accomplish this. You've typed probably 5 pages of non-sensical gibberish. WHAT DID YOU DO THAT ALLOWED YOU TO SELECT A NEXUS UNDER THE FOG OF WAR? What's more likely, computer programming error or human error? I would tend to believe that you made an error and selected a nexus that you shouldn't have, rather than something in the Starcraft code caused the replayed to say you selected a building while you didn't. Anyways, I don't know why I typed this all out. You're not going to read this properly and are not going to have a sensical reply. I guess this just makes me happy to see you get what you deserve and you're squirming around like the hacker you are. GL AT USA FINALS~!~!~ | ||
|
pirate cod
810 Posts
| ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
It was just so perfectly timed, i don't know how i could have defended myself if he accused of MH, but he didnt. I actually, felt pretty shitty afterwards, because i thought for sure they would say i hacked, and be kicked out of this guild. Concreate proof, such as replay selection analysis, nope. | ||
|
tenbagger
United States1289 Posts
But there has been not 1 case where penguin's "clear proof" method has been disproved. Until someone can produce a case where a "clear proof" instance is generated without maphack, then I will put 100% faith behind penguin's method. I think it's also important to set a standard to what clear proof is. Penguin mentioned 5+ seconds as his benchmark for clear proof, but I propose we also add "x" number of pixels away from the border of vision. I personally have tried various methods to produce a clear proof instance without maphack, using various commands and different situations with fog of war etc. I was unable to get a "clear proof" situation without maphack and I'm certain that no one else can either. I challenge someone to create a legitimate situation where a suspicious move was generated at least 5 seconds away from last vision and at least 2 matrixes away from the vision's borderline on a non-corrupt replay and I will eat my words and also personally apolgize to lois and selector. | ||
|
tenbagger
United States1289 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:45 Amnesty wrote: Sometimes it just intuition. One game I played a long time ago, i did something very suspicious. I gundam rushed and had him contained. I felt he was going reavers, so i sent some vultures to the outskirts of my main to lay mines for more of a heads up. As soon as they get their, I see his shuttle come out of fog of war near thoose vults as soon as my vults start to lay mines. It was just so perfectly timed, i don't know how i could have defended myself if he accused of MH, but he didnt. I actually, felt pretty shitty afterwards, because i thought for sure they would say i hacked, and be kicked out of this guild. Concreate proof, such as replay selection analysis, nope. According to penguin, this is by no means proof of hacking. It is merely suspicious action due to BW mechanics. For it to qualify as clear proof, it must be at least 5+ seconds before/after vision was obtained. In your case it was a matter of milliseconds, so it is clear that the situation you described can indeed be replicated without maphack. If you clicked his shuttle 5 seconds before you got vision and it was nowhere near the border of your vision and the replay was no corrupt, then yes it would be CONCRETE PROOF. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
However i just cant let him be be destroyed like this without at least a little fair defense. I used to get accused of hacking all the time back in the quake1/2 days. At first, it really pissed the fucking hell out of me. Dunno why, was just such an insult to have someone declare all my hours of practice and skills worth nothing, down the drain. Even worse when it was an admin and i would get kicked. However the difference of course was it was all opinionative, no program actually claimed to contain data against me. After probably a month of the occasional accusation, i did just what you said and didnt care anymore. I'd either calmly explain to the admin or person everything that could make my shot or intuition believable, or i'd just say "well i cant do anything about your thoughts, you do what you gotta do, im gonna keep playing". I dont think i was ever really banned or anything. Now when i get kicked from a css server, i dont even bother going back because i understand theres so many people out there without a clue. However i do have the luxery of about 2000 other servers to choose from. Lois is a little more pissed because his play is not limitted from a very popular crowd. Plus this might be his first time being accused so he's still going through the initial phase i was. But hacking and anti-cheat detection back then was a different animal, so i dont know if my behavior then can be applied to someone today. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:39 Chill wrote: Lastgosu, this is a generalization about human reactions, but here goes: When people are accused of something that they are innocent of, they claim their case rationally. If people generally don't believe them they explain the differences in their views and leave it at that. When people are accused of something that they are guilty of, they start freaking out. First off, you'll find their arguments just quite frankly don't make any sence whatsoever. They cite facts that really have nothing to do with the situation at all, or they try to attack the credibility of other people instead of defending their own credibility. You can easily see this in criminal / civil defendants or people involved with the police. If you're freaking out it's because you don't have a rational explanation to defend yourself. Which of the two categories do you believe you fit into? You clicked on someone's Nexus while it was under the fog of war. I have yet to hear a rational explanation about how you managed to accomplish this. You've typed probably 5 pages of non-sensical gibberish. WHAT DID YOU DO THAT ALLOWED YOU TO SELECT A NEXUS UNDER THE FOG OF WAR? What's more likely, computer programming error or human error? I would tend to believe that you made an error and selected a nexus that you shouldn't have, rather than something in the Starcraft code caused the replayed to say you selected a building while you didn't. Anyways, I don't know why I typed this all out. You're not going to read this properly and are not going to have a sensical reply. I guess this just makes me happy to see you get what you deserve and you're squirming around like the hacker you are. GL AT USA FINALS~!~!~ Well yeah, that, or wrongly accused people become very frustrated and act in a irrational manner. | ||
|
splat
Seychelles358 Posts
Also, consider the following scenario: You are playing against a terran, whether u know the opponent's race or not at the outset. You send ur worker to scout and while watching it u hear the sound of an SCV building something. The sound indicates terran (and his location on the map) and so u hide ur scout in the base and do an anti-terran build. After the game, ur opponent watches the replay and says "Your scout never had vision and yet u knew I was terran and where I spawned on the map. Hacker!" Sometimes intuition is mistaken for hack. For example, there was an incident before Rekrul went to Korea when he was accused of hack because (on LT I think?) he moved a bunch of goons to his natural exp just as the opponent (I forget who) was trying to drop near his ledge. Opponent says hack, Rekrul says "intuition". The controversy went away because there was no real proof and, well, it was Rekrul. | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:57 -_- wrote: Well yeah, that, or wrongly accused people become very frustrated and act in a irrational manner. I'm not sure about that. I got banned from my favorite CS server for supposedly hacking which I didn't. I acted very rationally because it just seemed the best way to convey my innocence. I had to go to their forum and make a formal complant and blah blah blah. This happened on another server where the server took screenshots of me and some admin requested I send them to him. I acted very rationally there too and sent them in promptly never bad mouthing them at all. So I would say people usually don't become irrational when they are innocent. | ||
|
Amnesty
United States2054 Posts
| ||
|
babodak!
Greece50 Posts
The point that -_- was trying to make was that not everyone reacts in the same way. It takes a very level headed person to keep calm and explain oneself after such an accusation. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
On May 10 2005 21:44 Amnesty wrote: In CS, your forgetting if you head shot the owner of the server or one of his close friends, you are a hacker no matter what. Just my expierence. my friend (milk in cs) has that problem with one server no matter what he shows the owner, he says "I don't care about your proof, you're a fucking hacker", but he is usually unbanned a week later anyways he's been banned and unbanned there three or four times | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
he hacks thanks. | ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
| ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
That shit has absolutely no relevance to this topic at all. BWAC/Bwchart catching suspicious actions and BWAC/Bwchart catching definite cases of hack ARE 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. 2. Stop with the "I/he was accused of hacking but I/he was not hacking" shit. Again, this has absolutely no relevance to this topic at all. Someone being accused of hacking when he wasn't really hacking (due to intuition, etc.) has absolutely NO relevance to this topic, which is asking if anyone has been caught hacking by supposed evidence (BWAC/BWChart) when he was not hacking. With that said, it is impossible as far as I know for anyone to not hack and is still caught by BWAC/BWchart as a hacker. I've said this in another topic, but the simplest non-technical way to test this is to download the thousands of replays from replay packs of top Korean pros--those who you know do not hack. You will never ever find 1 single instance of BWAC/BWchart catching a false case of hack (clicking on something at an instance when it is impossible without hack). Next, test it with 2 computers or a friend. Try to do everything you can think of to try to get BWAC/BWChart to catch a false case of hack. You will not succeed. You can get BWAC/BWchart to catch as many suspicious actions as you wish, but you will never get BWAC/BWChart to catch you clicking on something at an instance when it is impossible to click on (such as the case found in lastgosu's game) when you are not hacking. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
On May 10 2005 22:33 tfeign wrote: 1. Stop with the "bwchart gives me suspicous actions i dont hack" posts. That shit has absolutely no relevance to this topic at all. BWAC/Bwchart catching suspicious actions and BWAC/Bwchart catching definite cases of hack ARE 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. 2. Stop with the "I/he was accused of hacking but I/he was not hacking" shit. Again, this has absolutely no relevance to this topic at all. Someone being accused of hacking when he wasn't really hacking (due to intuition, etc.) has absolutely NO relevance to this topic, which is asking if anyone has been caught hacking by supposed evidence (BWAC/BWChart) when he was not hacking. With that said, it is impossible as far as I know for anyone to not hack and is still caught by BWAC/BWchart as a hacker. I've said this in another topic, but the simplest non-technical way to test this is to download the thousands of replays from replay packs of top Korean pros--those who you know do not hack. You will never ever find 1 single instance of BWAC/BWchart catching a false case of hack (clicking on something at an instance when it is impossible without hack). Next, test it with 2 computers or a friend. Try to do everything you can think of to try to get BWAC/BWChart to catch a false case of hack. You will not succeed. You can get BWAC/BWchart to catch as many suspicious actions as you wish, but you will never get BWAC/BWChart to catch you clicking on something at an instance when it is impossible to click on (such as the case found in lastgosu's game) when you are not hacking. Clap Clap : ] | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:38 NewbSaibot wrote: Nobody cares if you hacked vs some random guy in an unimportant game, but now they think you hacked in all the major matches too.. Interesting how you justify yourself. I see why battle.net is the way it is today. It is exactly your way of thinking that ruins many games at battle.net. | ||
|
Freezer_au
Australia1461 Posts
I would rather see x10 hackers get away with hacking, rather then see an innocent gamer who never hacked get accused wrongfully. | ||
|
pdk001
Korea (South)922 Posts
in my case 2 years ago, i wanted to fair play on WGT, i used to BWS as pdk001 and oG)pdk_kr, one day BWS calls me a hacker(i didnt know untill everyone told me that) why i didnt change as new ID and turn BWS on everytimes when i play a game if im a hacker? it wasnt rule on wgt to use BWS | ||
|
Never Post
United Kingdom503 Posts
| ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
BWScanner, on the other hand, is not as accurate, at least back then before it was refined. There were many instances of BWScanner reporting hack, but most of these cases were all caused by things such as people using APM Live, BWAC itself, even nocd launchers. Other causes exist which I won't go into. Accordingly, these instances of false hack detection by BWscanner were reported to TraveltoAuir who have used them to fine-tune the newer versions. Generally, discovery of hack when using BWScanner is not concrete proof of hack unless TraveltoAuir confirms it. Discover of hack with BWAC/BWChart, however, is concrete proof by itself. | ||
|
Napoleon
Poland81 Posts
 | ||
|
[Random]Digen
United Kingdom195 Posts
| ||
|
MoooN
Germany402 Posts
 | ||
|
2001newbie
United States336 Posts
| ||
|
Freezer_au
Australia1461 Posts
On May 11 2005 01:58 Napoleon wrote: Freezer_au it never happened on WGT. And lastgosu was hacking in this game, there is no doubt.This action is impossible to do without maphack (w/o vision of nexus), try it by yourself. Starcraft is saving true actions to replay. Bwchart only open/uznip them. The only mistake was done by Lois when he gave us proof by targeting nexus How can you say a player that has been banned for hack never been banned unfairly on WGT ? As accurate as admins are I am sure there have been occaisons where they have banned people that have not hacked. | ||
|
Napoleon
Poland81 Posts
Give me an example please if you're so sure o_O Sorry but i know how admins are baning people for hack. Without a good proof they will not touch anything. Spreading such rumours is a bit bad manner  And to the Lois story... go and DL last TLT reppack of him from WGT and you'll find more proofs. It's not a single action. Look here: http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/SW)LoisZ-e9.ShinigamiT_4.rep He moves to minerals that he haven't ever found. http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/screen81.jpg And another game: http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/SW)LoisZ-e9.ShinigamiT_5.rep He targets Ebay which is surely too far from his vision (he can't even see the sci facility) http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/screen80.jpg And many many more.... so plz EOT, Lois is a hacker edit: you must copy/paste link to your IE, i don't know why it doesn't work when you click | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 10 2005 21:44 Amnesty wrote: In CS, your forgetting if you head shot the owner of the server or one of his close friends, you are a hacker no matter what. Just my expierence. LOL, so true. Fuck CS | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7229 Posts
Please, if you think you were falsely convicted show that this can happen again :/ Otherwise shut up. | ||
|
dev
Canada93 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4511 Posts
| ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
| ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
lol | ||
|
RoboSexuaL
United States240 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:39 Chill wrote: you can't pinpoint human emotions like that, Sure this is good general truth most of the time but not all the time. Say im playing poker I see my opponent loading up his chips in his hand usually this means he has a weak hand and hes trying to intimidate me , but maybe he just has a bad habit of grabbing his chips or maybe he only does it when he sees me do a certain thing, maybe he knows that i know loading up chips is a sign of weakness.Lastgosu, this is a generalization about human reactions, but here goes: When people are accused of something that they are innocent of, they claim their case rationally. If people generally don't believe them they explain the differences in their views and leave it at that. When people are accused of something that they are guilty of, they start freaking out. First off, you'll find their arguments just quite frankly don't make any sence whatsoever. They cite facts that really have nothing to do with the situation at all, or they try to attack the credibility of other people instead of defending their own credibility. You can easily see this in criminal / civil defendants or people involved with the police. If you're freaking out it's because you don't have a rational explanation to defend yourself. Which of the two categories do you believe you fit into? You clicked on someone's Nexus while it was under the fog of war. I have yet to hear a rational explanation about how you managed to accomplish this. You've typed probably 5 pages of non-sensical gibberish. WHAT DID YOU DO THAT ALLOWED YOU TO SELECT A NEXUS UNDER THE FOG OF WAR? What's more likely, computer programming error or human error? I would tend to believe that you made an error and selected a nexus that you shouldn't have, rather than something in the Starcraft code caused the replayed to say you selected a building while you didn't. Anyways, I don't know why I typed this all out. You're not going to read this properly and are not going to have a sensical reply. I guess this just makes me happy to see you get what you deserve and you're squirming around like the hacker you are. GL AT USA FINALS~!~!~ One time i was playing a TvT vs these guys that say i suck blah blah they wont ever play me, then one day one of them challenges me TvT some crappy map I own the shit out of him with intuition and macro because there is only 2 expos per player, and i control the map with wraiths because the pathways are very small and narrow and for some reason we couldnt upgrade seige mode (LOL?). All throughout the game they are calling me a hacker, I don't think i have ever been so angry in a game in my entire life. The first thing is did was call him names and say he sucks before ever even trying to rationalize my gameplay. I don't hack, In fact they tried to cheat me, the creator of the game SAVED the game half way through corrupting the rest of the replay beyond that point. so i paused the game turned on camtasia and when i unalt tabbed it was unpaused obs wouldnt shut the fuck up with their comments etc. if anyone wants the rep and the video PM me, its kind of funny. | ||
|
Ashur
Czech Republic646 Posts
| ||
|
Y821
210 Posts
| ||
|
jidojazerg
Canada107 Posts
| ||
|
Berg_zerg
Germany294 Posts
2 people are accused hacking now. Selector and lois. Selector has been caught 4-5 times in the past... and still claims that he is no hacker... Lois was also caught hacking in the past... if you understand german language,read selectors posts on broodwar.de in the BW-forum. he was always defending himself to death in every game he was caught hacking... though it is very obvious that he hacked in every single game he was accused. | ||
|
MVP[eV]
United States270 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:23 lastgosu wrote: Yes it could be stupid bug in the game. In my case I got accused by map hack 100% now. about something that can be stupid bug in the game. at first people tried to accuse me hacking with Random Zerg Testie vs I. But now nobody talking more about it. now someone is keep trying to say look at this game SW)Lois vs MgZ)Nookie. It is impossible to happen he did attacked without vision etc. and accuse me hacker and banned me WGT with very small proof. 1 very small action which can be error and no more proof until now. Im very sure someone is seeking, trying to find some more proove to upload but couldnt yet. I really dont see senseful action belong with it. Im very sad i got banned from WGT (*cough*) im very sad about this comunity. You've been caught shrimp, deal with it.  | ||
|
MPXMX
Canada4309 Posts
NewbSaibot, if the hacker knows this and wnats to use reverse psychology , would he not act against his impulses and give a convincing rational explanation? (much like ilnp did after wdt  ) he convinced a lot of people, lastgosu didn't ... doesn't apply to this case People who admit their hackness are much less pathetic than those who don't.. | ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:21 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: "suspicious actions" are just when you click the other persons units and buildings. Can't believe you people haven't figured it out =[ hehe i know suspicious actions happen all the time, but i'm curious about something where you can perhaps click "attack move" into the fog of an opponents base and it somehow reads as a "selected this building" in BWChart / penguin plug | ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
Has this ever happened to you guys, where you are zerg/protoss early expanding, and you are getting ready to send your first few drones over to mine, so you click on the minerals in the fog of war. However, instead of that mineral lighting up, a DIFFERENT patch lights up. Or, sometimes when i tell a unit to "move" to a certain location in the fog of war in my enemy's base, and i happen to click NEAR a building, for some reason that building lights up. HOWEVER, when my unit gets to the area and there is no fog, they move exactly where i told them to, and not to the buliding that lit up... It made me curious as to whether or not a "select" had occured when i couldn't see it. I'll do some tests w/ my brother tasteless when i get back home from college | ||
|
MPXMX
Canada4309 Posts
| ||
|
Never Post
United Kingdom503 Posts
On May 11 2005 08:06 Day[9] wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR PEOPLE: Has this ever happened to you guys, where you are zerg/protoss early expanding, and you are getting ready to send your first few drones over to mine, so you click on the minerals in the fog of war. However, instead of that mineral lighting up, a DIFFERENT patch lights up. Or, sometimes when i tell a unit to "move" to a certain location in the fog of war in my enemy's base, and i happen to click NEAR a building, for some reason that building lights up. HOWEVER, when my unit gets to the area and there is no fog, they move exactly where i told them to, and not to the buliding that lit up... It made me curious as to whether or not a "select" had occured when i couldn't see it. I'll do some tests w/ my brother tasteless when i get back home from college Definately seen this happen. | ||
|
Napoleon
Poland81 Posts
| ||
|
lastprobeALIVE
United States974 Posts
| ||
|
IronMentality
United States1129 Posts
| ||
|
TreK
Sweden2089 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:05 nArAnjO wrote: i was caught hacking without hacking :D, so yea ppl are relying too much on these "perfect" programs to detect hack t.t u were caught hacking when u hack... aiighT | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
to just give vision to your opponent during the game from time to time and see if they say anything about it. If they're using maphack, they wouldn't say anything about it because they wouldn't notice it. | ||
|
superpenguin
France199 Posts
On May 11 2005 10:16 1tym wrote: The most simple way to catch a hacker is to just give vision to your opponent during the game from time to time and see if they say anything about it. If they're using maphack, they wouldn't say anything about it because they wouldn't notice it. Most of the time It doesnt work. | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
Why is that? | ||
|
MVP[eV]
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
TheBlackJack
57 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:05 nArAnjO wrote: i was caught hacking without hacking :D, so yea ppl are relying too much on these "perfect" programs to detect hack t.t But you were hacking. | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On May 11 2005 10:36 MVP[eV] wrote: Because if you give a player vision he will keep his mouth shut and use it to his advantage. no..what you do is.. use an odd build order or strategy like proxy gates, fast river drop, 5 drone pool build and give vision briefly then your opp. is likely to use the build order or strategy accordingly (counter strategy).. later when the game is over.. accuse him of maphacking for using the perfect counter build order/strategy.. If your opponent wasn't using maphack.. he would say.. "wtf?? it's because you visioned me" If he was using maphack.. his response won't include the word "vision" anywhere.. well ok but I acknowledge that this method is not always guaranteed. but at least it doesn't require any tools or complicated process. | ||
|
MVP[eV]
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
| ||
|
labcoated
Canada392 Posts
| ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
| ||
|
superpenguin
France199 Posts
On May 11 2005 10:36 MVP[eV] wrote: Because if you give a player vision he will keep his mouth shut and use it to his advantage. no, it's because the cheat program make the things different if they have vision or if they dont have it. Trust me, the method is flawed and most of the time, the cheater will be able to tell if you visioned him or not. | ||
|
OctoPuSs
Canada5279 Posts
On May 11 2005 13:56 superpenguin wrote: no, it's because the cheat program make the things different if they have vision or if they dont have it. Trust me, the method is flawed and most of the time, the cheater will be able to tell if you visioned him or not. I agree, on map hacks, you can use some kind of semi-fog where you see all your enemie's units + their buildings under the fog. If you vision, the fog will disapear and the hacker will notice . | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
| ||
|
Veg
Canada2945 Posts
On May 11 2005 12:09 Ghin wrote: If some newb gave me vision in a game, I sure as hell wouldn't say anything about it. I would keep my mouth shut and continue playing. which makes you the newb | ||
|
Fayth[pG]
Canada1093 Posts
it had been luck timing vs HovZ ;-) moving goons at same time his dropship was coming to drop me at the right spot that was rather luck, there wasnt bwchart back then nor anything else to catch a hacker, and i got banned unfairly! | ||
|
Napoleon
Poland81 Posts
On May 11 2005 10:16 1tym wrote: The most simple way to catch a hacker is to just give vision to your opponent during the game from time to time and see if they say anything about it. If they're using maphack, they wouldn't say anything about it because they wouldn't notice it. The stupidest method i've ever seen. Tons of accusations "i gave him vivion and he didn't say anything" ... wtf? do i have to unfocus myself during game and say something just because someone is checking me? rofl I never say anything in such situations. With this way you can't proove anything, and nobody can publicly accuse you of using maphack, so i don't care. | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
yah but giving the whole story again it's just too much, but i dind't hack in TLT i'm sure i woulda done nice at the tourney, i always do nice at tourneys =( | ||
|
OctoPuSs
Canada5279 Posts
On May 11 2005 16:38 nArAnjO wrote: yah but giving the whole story again it's just too much, but i dind't hack in TLT i'm sure i woulda done nice at the tourney, i always do nice at tourneys =(You hacked in the CL vs SCF. ROFL @ you. | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
| ||
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
, cuz i don't hack and they know it! shush!! | ||
|
Asian Fever
France269 Posts
to be strong or what?? | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
, not only maphack but stack and all those | ||
|
Heen
Korea (South)2178 Posts
| ||
|
SainT
Chile1067 Posts
| ||
|
Freezer_au
Australia1461 Posts
On May 11 2005 02:57 Napoleon wrote: " I am sure there have been occaisons where they have banned people that have not hacked" Give me an example please if you're so sure o_O Sorry but i know how admins are baning people for hack. Without a good proof they will not touch anything. Spreading such rumours is a bit bad manner And to the Lois story... go and DL last TLT reppack of him from WGT and you'll find more proofs. It's not a single action. Look here: http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/SW)LoisZ-e9.ShinigamiT_4.rep He moves to minerals that he haven't ever found. http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/screen81.jpg And another game: http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/SW)LoisZ-e9.ShinigamiT_5.rep He targets Ebay which is surely too far from his vision (he can't even see the sci facility) http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/screen80.jpg And many many more.... so plz EOT, Lois is a hacker edit: you must copy/paste link to your IE, i don't know why it doesn't work when you click I did not say that Louis didn't hack, and I will not go out and find proof. What I am saying is admins arent perfect and I am 100% positive players have been banned for hack when they havent hacked. Some of the WGT admins that end up making the decisions don't even play the game and don't have a good enough understanding of strategies and builds between different matchups. I am sure they have a good percentage of catching hackers but no way is it 100% success rate. | ||
|
Terross
United States878 Posts
| ||
|
RiSE
United States3182 Posts
| ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On May 11 2005 10:36 MVP[eV] wrote: Because if you give a player vision he will keep his mouth shut and use it to his advantage. On May 11 2005 12:09 Ghin wrote: If some newb gave me vision in a game, I sure as hell wouldn't say anything about it. I would keep my mouth shut and continue playing. On May 11 2005 16:23 Napoleon wrote: The stupidest method i've ever seen. Tons of accusations "i gave him vivion and he didn't say anything" ... wtf? do i have to unfocus myself during game and say something just because someone is checking me? rofl I never say anything in such situations. With this way you can't proove anything, and nobody can publicly accuse you of using maphack, so i don't care. "That's why your name won't be remembered" <Archilles the great warrior> | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
I don' rule out bwchart may be flawed. Personal experience once being accused hack in a 2v2 because 'conclusive evidence' that I selected a nexus 3 seconds in game. However the accuser claims I selected his partner's nexus, while on MY bwchart it shows I merely selected my partner's. I provided screenshot but in retrospective, I could just as well be faking that screenshot? While at the same time I cannot disprove the accuser has gotten the information wrong. Now about lastgosu, While i have not seen the replay involved, other factors such as say, given what screen shots I've seen, nookie builds a pylon after the suspicious action, something one cannot do without selecting a probe first, therefore we deduce that suspicious action should not be an action of nookie's and wrongly recorded by bwchart. Etc etc and we arrive at a list of possible things that may actually happened: 1. replay saving simply retarded and mistake an action that never happened(incorrectly recorded time of event, mistaken event/object blah blah). 2. everything is working fine, replay did record 'evidence of hacking' though really it appears the T was selecting tanks attack moving and I in that scenario don't usually select opponent buildings out of sight miles away... 3. or bwchart has problem analyzing some borderline information(as in replay don't know what to do with it, bwchart interpret it anyways) that replay saved. 4. any 3rd party in-game observing what may distort recording. 5. any 3rd party program running that might distort game information saved in replay. Based on this, we then try eliminate the alternative options.... I'm not going to jump onto the 100% hack bandwagon or the personal attacks. I too get irritatable when accused of hack in-game(usually resort to insulting the accuer's intelligence and evidence of a 'suck-hack' which imho is perfectly logical:-anyone who accuse me hack in-game is a retard, as I dont and can't do blantant things like target sv with scourges beyond sight range, anything else are just suspicious but not conclusive). | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:09 Petachu wrote: when i test a game with my 2 own computers (no hack of course) i sometimes get like 100 suspicious moves for each... so it is pretty weird Jesus-fucking-Christ. What part of the word "suspicious" did you not understand? Would you please use a dictionary before making stupid posts? Thank you. I will explain it to you because I'm such a nice guy. Suspicious action means: "Theses are the 100 out ouf 10000 actions in the game, that are worth looking into if you expect someone to hack and want to check, if the things he clicks are really visible and clickable for him at that point in the game". No more, no less. Understood the difference between "Suspicious" and "Prooven guilty" now? Ah never mind .... | ||
|
RoboSexuaL
United States240 Posts
On May 11 2005 17:07 Asian Fever wrote: people hack to win....just one question.. why hack ????? to be strong or what?? | ||
|
[vital]Myth
United States588 Posts
On May 11 2005 08:06 Day[9] wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR PEOPLE: Has this ever happened to you guys, where you are zerg/protoss early expanding, and you are getting ready to send your first few drones over to mine, so you click on the minerals in the fog of war. However, instead of that mineral lighting up, a DIFFERENT patch lights up. Or, sometimes when i tell a unit to "move" to a certain location in the fog of war in my enemy's base, and i happen to click NEAR a building, for some reason that building lights up. HOWEVER, when my unit gets to the area and there is no fog, they move exactly where i told them to, and not to the buliding that lit up... It made me curious as to whether or not a "select" had occured when i couldn't see it. I'll do some tests w/ my brother tasteless when i get back home from college Happens all the time ^^ | ||
|
Napoleon
Poland81 Posts
Complete bullshit. Please stop talking about admin work when you don't know shit about it. I tell you once more... admins are not baning ANYONE for hack without a 100%proof. Strategy and BW skill has nothing to do with it. You're 100% positive? Please give examples. If not - stop it, thanks. | ||
|
Raidern
Brazil3811 Posts
and beat the guy he asked for re, i said yes and then we went to play the 2nd game in the middle of the game he allies vision with me, and then i dont say anything and use it to kill him when he was being killed he said 'didnt you notice anything?' and i said: "yes, you gave me vision and i used it to kick your noob ass" then he left the game lol | ||
|
PrincessLeila
France170 Posts
BWChart "Suspicious actions" are just actions where u selected ur opponent building/unit NO MATTER IF U CAN SEE IT OR NOT !!!! So : U have to see the replay and check urself if he has the vision of what he selected => yes he have => no proof => no he clearly cant see that (its 2 screens behind fog war) => HE CLEARLY HACKED (select my opponent pool when i'm scouting with scv is a "suspicious action") | ||
|
Freezer_au
Australia1461 Posts
On May 12 2005 12:11 Napoleon wrote: "I did not say that Louis didn't hack, and I will not go out and find proof. What I am saying is admins arent perfect and I am 100% positive players have been banned for hack when they havent hacked. Some of the WGT admins that end up making the decisions don't even play the game and don't have a good enough understanding of strategies and builds between different matchups. I am sure they have a good percentage of catching hackers but no way is it 100% success rate." Complete bullshit. Please stop talking about admin work when you don't know shit about it. I tell you once more... admins are not baning ANYONE for hack without a 100%proof. Strategy and BW skill has nothing to do with it. You're 100% positive? Please give examples. If not - stop it, thanks. Do elite football referees make mistakes ? Yes they do! They are professional and get paid big bucks and yet they still make mistakes. WGT Admins do not get paid, the majority of them don't even play the game competitivly. Remember the old days of WGT ? Before we had all these new programs ? Admins had to decide on basic game knowledge or accept votes from the public to influence their decisions. The way you are talking, you are making it sound as though WGT admins have a perfect 100% record in catching all the hackers they have cought. I am 100% sure that some people that have been banned were infact not using a hack. No I wont go looking for individual examples. I don't have the time. | ||
|
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
On May 12 2005 12:11 Napoleon wrote: "I did not say that Louis didn't hack, and I will not go out and find proof. What I am saying is admins arent perfect and I am 100% positive players have been banned for hack when they havent hacked. Some of the WGT admins that end up making the decisions don't even play the game and don't have a good enough understanding of strategies and builds between different matchups. I am sure they have a good percentage of catching hackers but no way is it 100% success rate." Complete bullshit. Please stop talking about admin work when you don't know shit about it. I tell you once more... admins are not baning ANYONE for hack without a 100%proof. Strategy and BW skill has nothing to do with it. You're 100% positive? Please give examples. If not - stop it, thanks. The way I figure it, is there isn't anyone that I have banned for maphack that has made a legitimate complaint about it. Except you get like "I wasn't hacking on wgt" or the Tittybang method of deny deny deny, say the proof is forged, then deny it some more. Well, and there is madcow  . | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
